This will be mines in less than 2 weeks

[alanschu]

If that was the only response a target would have, warning shots would not be utilized by police or military forces.

 

I seriously doubt any law enforcement officers are trained or even allowed to fire warning shots. There's too much risk in firing a bullet in a public area to waste one making noise.

 

You'll find situations where law enforcement officers do fire warning shots. Sometimes bad things happen, sometimes not. But they have fired them. Maybe it's policy now days not to do it to avoid hitting non-hostile targets, but that part is irrelevant. If warning shots were used in the past, I'm guessing it was for a reason. And I doubt that the only response that a suspect had was to immediately fight back because of it. A situation in Taiwan was immediately subdued when an officer fired a warning shot. Yes, there was concern that things would have been different if his shot had accidentally hurt someone. But if the only response would be to fight back, the warning shot would not have worked.

 

 

Everything's different in the military, but I chances are that if you're immediately threatening the life of a soldier, that warning shot is going to hit somebody in the sternum.

If you're immediately threatening the life of someone, all bets are off. Is it safe to assume that the mere presence of someone in your house is an immediate threat to your safety and life? Even if you catch him 20 feet across the room raiding your refrigerator, both hands in plain sight and not carrying a weapon?

 

Air forces and Naval forces also fire warning shots to subdue planes and naval vessels. The shot across the bow used to be a signal that we cannot see what colours you are flying.

 

 

 

Warning shots are a waste of time and there is too much of a chance of an innocent getting hurt. If you are going to shoot a gun, make sure your intended target is struck and only your intended target is struck.

 

I would argue that they aren't a waste of time. I'm sure they'd be effective. You say your gun encounter was anti-climactic. Do you think you'd still feel the same if he fired a round inches from your head? Your point about too much chance of an innocent getting hurt is a good rationalization of why to not fire a warning shot. Keep in mind of course, that my initial (impossible) idea was about a blank round. My discussion with Aram is about whether or not the sound of a bullet does anything more than convince the person being fired at that the person firing the gun only means to kill them, and should therefore fight back.

Edited February 8, 2007 by alanschu

[Sand]

Well, a sound of a bullet will, for most people, give the initial fight or flight response. The problem is that you would need a individually chambered revolver in order to properly mix bullets and blanks. I don't think a single clip can hold both and it would take too long to change clips if the bugger was going to fight instead of run. I could be mistaken on this. I never dealt with blanks during my military service.

[alanschu]

The problem is that you would need a individually chambered revolver in order to properly mix bullets and blanks

 

I have already acknowledged that this idea would not work. Aram pointed it out already.

[Sand]

Oh, sorry.

 

Its a good idea if it could work. Maybe we should use tazers instead.

Edited February 8, 2007 by Sand

[alanschu]

Tasers are very effective non-lethal takedown.

 

THe biggest issue with them is, as far as I know, if you miss, you're in trouble. And you won't have the benefit of deterrence on yourside.

[Sand]

I had this idea of a charged needler system. It shoots a weighted needle that gives a electrical discharge on impact. What causes the weight is the independent rechargable battery within it. When it strikes a target it inject the full power of the battery into the target, stunning him. The practical application of designing such a weapon eludes me since I am not a weapon designer. However the gun itself could carry four such needles in a clip and may have a range of 15 to 20 feet.

Edited February 8, 2007 by Sand

[Guard Dog]

Well, a sound of a bullet will, for most people, give the initial fight or flight response. The problem is that you would need a individually chambered revolver in order to properly mix bullets and blanks. I don't think a single clip can hold both and it would take too long to change clips if the bugger was going to fight instead of run. I could be mistaken on this. I never dealt with blanks during my military service.

It can't. Blanks are different size and weight from live rounds. A little OT here but... Don't know if it is still this way but when I was in the USMC, every Thursday was training/field day. No matter what job you did, every Thursday morning you would do some kind of infantry training. Well, one particular time we did M-60E-3 (light 7.62mm machine gun) training. Since you need to be at a range to fire live ammo, we were using blanks. Since I was the duty armorer that month I checked the M-60 and 80 belts of blanks (100 rounds per belt) and took it to the training area and at the end of the day brought it back. Now, I had to clean it. I had no idea blanks made such a bloody MESS. When you fire a round the burned powder is pulled down the barrel by the vacuum created by the projectile leaving. Some of it burns from the friction the projectile exerts on the barrel, a far bit exits the barrel behind the projectile (GSR for you CSI fans). Well, with the blanks, the barrel is stoppered so it goes nowhere. An after 8000 rounds it is caked up and burned in. So, anyway, I cleaned this damned thing for 3 days with a toothbrush, q-tips, pipe cleaners, bore patches,and CLP (the ONLY compound authorized for cleaning a military weapon.) I got no where. I voiced my frustrations many times to the armorer but he just laughed. Finally on day 4 I filled a 5 gallon trash basket with gasoline and hid it in the back of my car. I asked the armorer if I could take it topside to work on it that day (the armory was underground). He agreed. After 30 min in gasoline it was spotless. I rubbed it down with CLP to get rid of the smell and turned it in. Anyway, the armorer looks it over and laughs and said "It took you three days to figure it out. Sometimes you gotta break the rules to get the job done."

 

Anyway, blanks just screw up your weapon. Don't use them.

[Sand]

Nice story Guardster, very humorous.

[Walsingham]

I used to correspond with a militia guy, and took exactly Calson's line. If you think handguns are going to help you fight the armies of thugs you are out of your teeny tinies. The government would be far more sensible to regulate organisationa nd transport. Wait, that's right, they already did.

 

And Guarddog I'm very surprised to hear you taking that line. The amendments are designed to be alterable. They're none of them set in stone. And teh notion that because one on arms is wrong tehy're all wrong. Please?!

[Aram]

I used to correspond with a militia guy, and took exactly Calson's line. If you think handguns are going to help you fight the armies of thugs you are out of your teeny tinies.

 

Maybe so, but it's still a step up from being completely defenseless. If a person is armed, it's a fight, even if it's extremely one-sided. All it takes to get compliance from an unarmed person is pain.

 

And Guarddog I'm very surprised to hear you taking that line. The amendments are designed to be alterable. They're none of them set in stone. And teh notion that because one on arms is wrong tehy're all wrong. Please?!

 

Yes, well, regardless of whether or not the amendments in the constitution are suposed to be torn out or inked over at anyone's convenience, the 2nd amendment, in mine and in a great deal of Americans' minds, is not wrong. We consider the right to self defense as basic and precious a freedom as the right to free speech or the right to privacy. In our history we've had multiple crimes by our government against all three of these rights, and none are any more of less criminal than another. If someone were to try to take away any of them completely, I think they'd have a fight on their hands

[Walsingham]

Aram, you are clearly free to debate whether the 2nd amendment should stay or not. I'm saying that disposing of one does not invalidate all of them.

 

I do not, however, equate responsible gun ownership with depriving the people of the right to self defence. You do not object when the government regulates car ownership, even tohugh removing all private transport would be an excellent way to maintain a police state.

[Aram]

You do not object when the government regulates car ownership, even tohugh removing all private transport would be an excellent way to maintain a police state.

 

As far as I know, there are no laws against owning an automobile, or even driving one, without a license in America, even if you're underage or intoxicated, as long as you only drive it on your own property. It is only when you take the automobile out onto the roads, built, operated, and owned by the government, that there are any sort of restrictions. On the road you have to follow a very complex series of rules and actively participate in a very complicated and dangerous action if you're not to be a danger to yourself and to all others on the road. This would equate more to following the rules of safety while at a shooting range than to ownership alone.

 

As far as simple ownership is concerned, automobiles have far less restrictions than firearms, which makes little sense as they're potentially just as dangerous.

[Guard Dog]

And Guarddog I'm very surprised to hear you taking that line. The amendments are designed to be alterable. They're none of them set in stone. And teh notion that because one on arms is wrong tehy're all wrong. Please?!

 

Yes they are designed to be alterable by the Constitutional Amendment process as laid out in Article 5 of the constitution. The problem I have with gun control laws is that to date they have side stepped that and tried to enact their agenda by legislative or judicial fiat. If that happens then the scenario I laid out happens just that way. To enforce such a law they will need to trample those amendments I noted. And if the government is not held to it's own law then it becomes and out of control monster in a BIG hurry.

 

The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. All powers and limitations assigned to the US Government as well as most of the personal freedoms enjoyed by US citizens are codified therein. Politically I consider myself a strict constructionist and I recoil when I hear US politicians (like Al Gore and Hillary Clinton who both said it) state that the Constitution is a "living" document that needs to change with the times. Laws need to change with the times, but the rules of governance do not.

 

As I said, if all 50 states and 2/3 of the citizens decide the time has come to set the second amendment aside, and DO IT LEGALLY by the amendment process, then that will become the law of the land I will get rid of my firearms then. Until that day "from my cold dead hand".

[Lucius]

Gun control probably wont work in the US. Yours is a violent culture, as several posters here has more or less confirmed, you need only look at Switzerland to see a country where there's about 400.000 assault rifles in private homes, since they get them home after having served in the Swiss militia, and they've got relatively low crime rate afaik, they're just not a violent people.

[Walsingham]

I do agree with Lucius to an extent that a far more important issue is why people own guns and how they use them. Hence my objections to the tone of the original post.

 

Clearly, GD, I have to support your stance. By all means change the amendment, but don't do it by stealth. However, I do recall something about a well regulated militia. My own view is that if you really intend your firearm as a means of securing personal freedom you should make a plan for when and how you will act. Failure to set up the 'trip switch' in advanec will likely lead to disaster. *shrugs* just a thought.

 

Aram, the sysetm may well be different in the US, but in the UK you cannot own a car unless you are can demonstrate that you understand how to use it responsibly. You also have to have it checked for safety etc etc. This is because cars are potentially deadly. I don't understand why it is a big step to insist upon the same standards for owning a firearm, which is designed specifically to kill. Such insistence would help keep firearms out of the hands of the unsafe, and would improve teh military usefulness of those who own them.

[Lucius]

It costs around 1700$ (at the highest) to get a drivers licence in Denmark, and about 3 months of drivers school. Luckily I passed both theory and driver test in first attempt.

 

How is this in the US?

Edited February 9, 2007 by Lucius

[Guard Dog]

As Aram said, it will never happen. No such amendment will ever be carried in the vote even if all 50 states get it on the ballot. Most Americans (I hope) are wary of government and will not cheaply sell their freedoms. Case in point, the 3rd Amendment states:

 

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

 

There is not a more outdated amendment than this but if any group tried to repeal it most people would oppose it I think. You just ask yourself "what if?"

[Guard Dog]

It costs around 1700$ (at the highest) to get a drivers licence in Denmark, and about 3 months of drivers school. Luckily I passed both theory and driver test in first attempt.

 

How is this in the US?

Each state does it's own thing with drivers licenses. In Florida it costs $22 and you need to pass a test when you first get it. Most states are thereabouts except California. I think it's more expenisve there. In Japan my license cost $150 USD. I forgot what the actual yen price was.

[Guard Dog]

I do agree with Lucius to an extent that a far more important issue is why people own guns and how they use them. Hence my objections to the tone of the original post.

 

The number one and two use of firearms in America are hunting and marksmanship (for sport). Maybe not in that order. I own three. A Winchester .300 with which I enjoy both sports. I also own a single shot .20GA that is strictly for home defense (note I said home defense not self defense, I do not carry it with me). And a Colt Navy .36 cal revolver. But that is a genuine antique. It belonged to my great great grandfather and he carried it in the US Civil War. I have it in a display case in my den.

 

But the 2nd amendment applies no litmus test as to why a citizen should wish to own a firearm. It simply states their right to do so shall not be infringed.

[Lucius]

Yeah but the hoodlum with the Tech 9 and the redneck with the full auto shotgun are both probably not gonna use them for deer hunting, nor strictly for shooting beer cans.

 

But what is to stop you from getting whatever you want then? How about a recoiless gun in your front lawn, cuz y'all never know when the government might send tanks at ya!

[Guard Dog]

Yeah but the hoodlum with the Tech 9 and the redneck with the full auto shotgun are both probably not gonna use them for deer hunting, nor strictly for shooting beer cans.

All of which are illegal own, and cannot be bought anywhere legally. So a gun control law will not really affect them will it? Gun control only disarms law abiding citizens.

[Walsingham]

Perhaps I should throw in the fact that I strictly opposed gun amnesties in Afghanistan. There you realy will be disarming the very people who support and uphold the law. But the United States is no longer the Wild West. Most nations industrialised to the same extent as you give up their right to personal force as part of the social contract. This might take care of the personal/home defence aspect.

 

I still maintain that thinking a handgun or even rifle is going to protect you from a properly orchestrated fascist takeover is pure wishful thinking. Particularly given the massive disparity in weaponry and other equipment between the State agencies and the average cit.

[Dark_Raven]

What the hell do you need night sights for a hand gun for? You plan on killing people in the dark Eddo?

[Guard Dog]

Perhaps I should throw in the fact that I strictly opposed gun amnesties in Afghanistan. There you realy will be disarming the very people who support and uphold the law. But the United States is no longer the Wild West. Most nations industrialised to the same extent as you give up their right to personal force as part of the social contract. This might take care of the personal/home defence aspect.

 

I still maintain that thinking a handgun or even rifle is going to protect you from a properly orchestrated fascist takeover is pure wishful thinking. Particularly given the massive disparity in weaponry and other equipment between the State agencies and the average cit.

 

You need to understand something here Wals, the American and European mindsets are very different. Both are members of "Western Civilization" both industrialized and advanced. But to give up an individual right, no matter how outdated in may seem, is an anathema to the great majority of Americans and the social contract be damned. As we have discussed earlier, a law outlawing guns tomorrow will not remove a single gun from the street. It will not convince a criminal who has no problem with robbery or murder to give up his gun. All it will do is ensure when he breaks into my house I will not have the means to defend it or my family. If I called the police it would take them 5-7 min to get here. An eternity in those circumstances. Another thing to consider 94% of the land in the US is considered rural or undeveloped. If you need the police in west Texas, Central Georgia, somewhere like that it will take them a half hour or more to get to you.

 

As to your second point. If the President were suspend the Constitution and dissolve the congress we (the citizens) would fight. But it would be a doomed and hopeless cause if the military were against us. But I'd rather die in the fight than live in the aftermath. Why do you think we were able to throw the Brits out in the revolution? If England was hell bent on keeping the colonies, damn the costs, there would be only one possible end to the American revolution: British victory. But to do so they would have needed to kill over half the population and almost all of the males capable of firing a musket. And at a tremendous cost of English blood and treasure. It was not worth it. How do you defeat a people who would rather die than live under your rule? A lesson that applies to todays world come to think on it.

 

If you do a little reading on the intent of the founders, they intended an armed people to be a deterrent to their own government as well as an invading army.

Edited February 9, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Walsingham]

Thanks for trying to clarify, but I need your continued assistance. In the Uk the cops will take ten minutes to half an hour to turn up, assuming they do at all! But that doesn't mean (in general) we would rather have everyone dispensing 'justice' in person. I might gently observe that efforts would be better spent on trying to stop people busting into so many houses!

 

With regard to the revolutionary war I would likewise gently observe that you chaps owe a great deal more to the ineptitude of our officers than some jihadist fervour. But that's not really the point. If you know the fight is doomed, and you'd raher die than survive, then why not arm yourself with a really kickass flagpole, and a cutlass?